Summary Judgments

NOCOM v CAMERINO
FACTS:
Respondents are tenants of the lots which they were seeking to redeem from SMSC. They won but the case has not
yet been fully executed since TCTs were not yet transferred to them. While all of these are pending, Atty. Santos the
counsel for Respondents in their case against SMSC facilitated a deal between Respondents and Nocom. The deal
would transfer all their inchoate rights to Nocom. The deal went through and Respondents were paid after they
executed an Irrevocable Power of Attorney in the name of Nocom.Respondents won their case and the court
ordered the transfer of titles and the annotation of the Irrevocable Power of Attorney to the titles.
However, Camerino filed a complaint against Nocom, captioned as Petition to Revoke Power of Attorney. Alleging
that the document was not explained to them and they were mislead by their counsel.
On January 30, 2006, respondent Oscar Camerino filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that since the
existence of the Irrevocable Power of Attorney was admitted by petitioner, the only issue to be resolved was
whether the said document was coupled with interest and whether it was revocable in contemplation of law and
jurisprudence; that Summary Judgment was proper because petitioner did not raise any issue relevant to the
contents of the Irrevocable Power of Attorney; and that in an Affidavit dated January 23, 2005, he admitted receipt of
a check amounting to P500,000.00 which was given to him by petitioner as financial assistance.
Nocom oppose Camerinos motion on ground that there were factual issues. Subsequently, Nocom file d Motion to
Dismiss- NO Jurisdiction since it is a Real Action docket fees paid was insufficient. Camerino insisted that it was a
personal action (revocation of an Irrevocacle Power of Attorney).
RTC granted Motion for Summary Judgment since there is no genuine issue of fact that needs to be tried in court.
Camarino is also ordered to pay the balance of the docket fees.
RTC rendered a Summary Judgment annulling the Irrevocable Power of Attorney for being contrary to law and
public policy on the qualification of the beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program.
CA affirmed Summary Judgment and dismissed Nocoms appeal. The CA found the issues raised by the petitioner in
his appeal to be questions of law. MR denied.
ISSUE:
WON CA erred in dismissing Nocoms appeal and upholding that the summary judgment was proper.
HELD:
Contrary to the findings of the RTC and the CA, the present case involves certain factual issues which remove it from
the coverage of a summary judgment.
In this present case, while both parties acknowledge or admit the existence of the Irrevocable Power of Attorney, the
variance in the allegations in the pleadings of the petitioner and that of the respondents require the presentation of
evidence on the issue of the validity of the Irrevocable Power of Attorney to determine whether its execution was
attended by the vices of consent and whether the respondents and their spouses did not freely and voluntarily
execute the same.
Under Section 1, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, a party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim
or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof.
Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out litigations and useless delays.
When the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules allow a party to obtain

immediate relief by way of summary judgment, that is, when the facts are not in dispute, the court is allowed to decide
the case summarily by applying the law to the material facts. Conversely, where the pleadings tender a genuine
issue, summary judgment is not proper.
A genuine issue is such issue of fact which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham,
fictitious, contrived or false claim.
Section 3 of the said rule provides two (2) requisites for summary judgment to be proper: (1) there must be no
genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the amount of damages; and (2) the party presenting the motion for
summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment is proper if, while the pleadings on their face appear
to raise issues, the affidavits, depositions, and admissions presented by the moving party show that such issues are
not genuine.
The present case should not be decided via a summary judgment. Summary judgment is not warranted when there
are genuine issues which call for a full blown trial. The party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of
demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaint is patently
unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. Trial courts have limited authority to render summary
judgments and may do so only when there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as
pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial